Performance testing of HPC on sunshine bridge

PERFORMANCE TESTING OF
HPC ON SUNSHINE BRIDGE
Final Report 658
Prepared by:
Tarif M. Jaber
Jaber Engineering Consulting, Inc.
10827 E. Butherus Drive
Scottsdale, Arizona 85255
September 2009
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
in cooperation with
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
The contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and
the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway
Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or
manufacturers’ names which may appear herein are cited only because they are considered
essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and The State of Arizona do not
endorse products or manufacturers.
This report can also be found on our web site…
http://www.dot.state.az.us/ABOUT/atrc/Publications/Publications.htm
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA-AZ-09-658
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
5. Report Date
September 2009
Performance Testing of HPC on Sunshine Bridge 6. Performing Organization Code
SPR-658
7. Author
Tarif M. Jaber, P.E. FACI
8. Performing Organization Report No.
JEC Project JEC 64-107
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Work Unit No.
11. Contract or Grant No.
T0402A0002 SPR 658
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
13.Type of Report & Period Covered
Project Manager: Christ Dimitrplos 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
The deck of the Sunshine Bridge overpass, located westbound on Interstate 40 (I-40) near Winslow, Arizona, was
replaced on August 24, 2005. The original deteriorated concrete deck was replaced using high performance
concrete (HPC), reinforced with low-carbon, low-corrosion reinforcing steel. HPC is a new technology in Arizona.
This report documents the first survey of the deck's condition and recommends that ADOT embark on a monitoring
program to evaluate the performance of HPC.
The ADOT monitoring program should consist of visual observation of the deck condition and concrete sampling
and testing to measure and document HPC performance. The survey presented in this report was performed on
December 18, 2007, which represents the first field survey since concrete deck placement.
Visual observation and test results show the following:
1. The concrete has a very low chloride permeability.
2. The concrete has significantly slowed down and/or prevented chloride penetration through the bridge deck.
3. The average air-void parameters of HPC do not meet the industry standards for frost resistant concrete.
4. The deck surface appears to have minimal wear from snow removal equipment and shows no signs of
concrete cracking.
HPC appears to perform very well during the monitoring period despite the lower than recommended air void
system. There were no signs of deterioration or adverse field conditions.
It is recommended that bridge deck monitoring and concrete testing be done annually or biennially throughout the
bridge's estimated 50-year service life to confirm long-term performance of HPC. It is also recommend that the next
monitoring survey be initiated and conducted before the end of the year 2009.
17. Key Words
High performance concrete, bridge decks, low
carbon steel, chloride permeability, rapid chloride
penetration, air void parameters, concrete
cracking, HPC monitoring, long term performance
of HPC
18. Distribution Statement
Document is available to the
U.S. public through the
National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia
22161
23. Registrant's Seal
19. Security Classification
Unclassified
20. Security Classification
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
13
22. Price
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft
yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 Square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 Square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd3
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3.
MASS MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb
T short tons (2000lb) 0.907 megagrams
(or “metric ton”)
mg
(or “t”)
Mg megagrams
(or “metric ton”)
1.102 short tons (2000lb) T
TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact)
ºF Fahrenheit
temperature
5(F-32)/9
or (F-32)/1.8
Celsius temperature ºC ºC Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit
temperature
ºF
ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION
fc foot candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc
fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl
FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
lbf/in2 poundforce per
square inch
6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per
square inch
lbf/in2
SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................1
Introduction.........................................................................................................................2
Project Background .............................................................................................................2
Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................2
Work Performed ..................................................................................................................3
1. Field Sampling .....................................................................................................................3
2. Field Observation.................................................................................................................3
3. Laboratory Testing..............................................................................................................3
a. Rapid chloride permeability ..............................................................................................3
b. Air void analysis................................................................................................................4
c. Chloride ion content ..........................................................................................................4
Findings................................................................................................................................5
Recommendations ................................................................................................................5
References .............................................................................................................................6
Appendix ...............................................................................................................................7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Cores Information....................................................................................................3
Table 2 - RCP Results.............................................................................................................4
Table 3 - Air Void Analysis Results .......................................................................................4
Table 4 - Chloride Ion Content Results...................................................................................4
Table 5 - ASTM C1202 ..........................................................................................................5
APPENDIX
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 1- Coring location A .....................................................................................................7
Photo 2- Coring location A .....................................................................................................7
Photo 3- Coring location B .....................................................................................................8
Photo 4- Coring location C .....................................................................................................8
Photo 5- Concrete cores ..........................................................................................................9
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The deck of the Sunshine Bridge overpass, located westbound on Interstate 40 (I-40) near
Winslow, Arizona, was replaced on August 24, 2005. The original deteriorated concrete
deck was replaced using high performance concrete (HPC), reinforced with low-carbon, low-corrosion
reinforcing steel. HPC is a new technology in Arizona. This report documents the
first survey of the deck's condition and recommends that ADOT embark on a monitoring
program to evaluate the performance of HPC.
The ADOT monitoring program should consist of visual observation of the deck condition
and concrete sampling and testing to measure and document HPC performance. The survey
presented in this report was performed on December 18, 2007, which represents the first field
survey since concrete deck placement.
Visual observation and test results show the following:
1. The concrete has a very low chloride permeability.
2. The concrete has significantly slowed down and/or prevented chloride penetration
through the bridge deck.
3. The average air-void parameters of HPC do not meet the industry standards for frost
resistant concrete.
4. The deck surface appears to have minimal wear from snow removal equipment and
shows no signs of concrete cracking.
HPC appears to perform very well during the monitoring period despite the lower than
recommended air void system. There were no signs of deterioration or adverse field
conditions.
We recommend that bridge deck monitoring and concrete testing be done annually or
biennially throughout the bridge's estimated 50-year service life to confirm long-term
performance of HPC. We also recommend that the next monitoring survey be initiated and
conducted before the end of the year 2009.
2
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this work was to collect information on the performance of the high
performance concrete (HPC), placed on the deck of the Sunshine Bridge overpass on I-40.
The bridge deck was constructed on August 24, 2005, as a pilot project under ATRC Project
SPR 538 to evaluate the feasibility of using HPC technology on bridges in Arizona.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Work under SPR 538 consisted of replacing the deteriorated concrete deck slab with a
durable cast-in-place HPC deck. The HPC was designed to achieve four main objectives:
• Higher durability under freeze-thaw exposure.
• Lower permeability to salt penetration.
• Lower shrinkage potential.
• Reduced steel corrosion.
Quality control and quality assurance programs were implemented during concrete
placement to collect and document information regarding concrete properties at the time of
placement. Concrete sampling and testing were performed during construction to measure
the in-place properties of HPC. This work is a part of a long-term program to monitor the
performance of HPC during service life to:
1. Establish a baseline for concrete properties in the field.
2. Compare the baseline of concrete properties against those measured during concrete
placement.
The baseline established in this work will be used as a benchmark for evaluating concrete
properties and performance during the service life of the concrete bridge deck.
Jaber Engineering Consulting, Inc. (JEC) has completed the work on this project according to
the scope of work outlined in the project statement dated December 7, 2007.
SCOPE OF WORK
1. Visually examine the bridge deck and barriers and document any cracking. If
cracking is found, identify the type and cause.
2. Obtain concrete cores from the deck and measure the following:
a. Rapid chloride permeability (RCP) according to ASTM 1202 Method for
Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration.
(ASTM 2009)
b. Air voids by performing an analysis according to ASTM C 457-06 Method for
Microscopical Determination of Parameters of the Air Void System in Hardened
Concrete. (ASTM 2006)
c. Chloride ion content (CIC) according to ASTM 1218 Method for Water-Soluble
Chloride in Mortar and Concrete. (ASTM 2002).
3. Measure the extent of chloride penetration through the concrete bridge deck.
3
WORK PERFORMED
1. Field Sampling
JEC retained Western Technologies, Inc. (WTI) to perform concrete coring. WTI used
ground penetrating radar (GPR) instruments to locate the reinforcing steel. Concrete coring
locations were selected to avoid any damage to the reinforcing steel during coring operations.
On December 18, 2007, concrete from the bridge deck was sampled at three locations and at
least four cores were taken at each location. A schedule of the concrete core samples is
presented in Table 1 and coring is shown in photos 1 through 5 in the Appendix. All
concrete samples were less than 6 inches long to avoid penetration of the full depth of the
deck. A non-shrink grout was used to patch all cored areas.
Table 1 - Cores Information
CORE INFORMATION
AREA CORE LOCATION # CORES DESIGNATION
A 14' S. of the north barrier and 23' W. of the E. end of the deck 5 A1, A2, A3, A4, A51
B 12' S. of the north barrier and 94.5' E. of the W. end of the deck 4 B1, B2, B3, B4
C 12' S. of the north barrier and 23' E. of the W. end of the deck 4 C1, C2, C3, C4
1 Core A5 was damaged during coring and was discarded
2. Field Observation
JEC made a visual observation of the concrete deck and its surface. There were no signs of
deterioration, scaling, cracking, or similar adverse conditions. The deck surface showed light
markings from snow removal blades and equipment.
3. Laboratory Testing
ADOT retained one sample from each location to perform an in-house RCP testing. ADOT
samples were marked A1, B1, and C1. The remaining samples were sent to WTI and
Construction Technology Laboratory (CTL) in Skokie, Illinois, for testing.
a. Rapid chloride permeability testing was performed by CTL using cores number A2, B2,
and C2. For each core/location, (A, B, and C) the top ¾ inch of the concrete core was
removed and discarded. A 2-inch thick sample was cut and labeled “TOP.” Another 1-
inch thick was cut and discarded and a 2-inch thick sample was cut and labeled
4
“BOTTOM.” The top and bottom samples for each location were tested and their average
represented the RCP value at that location. Results are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 - RCP Results
RCP TEST RESULTS ASTM C 1202, COULOMB
SAMPLE CORE A2 CORE B2 CORE C2 AVERAGE
TOP 1 333 517 574
BOTTOM 2 204 273 193
AVERAGE 269 395 384 349
1 The top of this 2-inch sample is ¾ inch from the top of the corresponding core/deck surface.
2 The top of this 2-inch sample is 3¾ inch from the top of the corresponding core/deck surface.
b. Air void analysis was performed by CTL using samples number A3, B3, and C3. Results
are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 - Air Void Analysis Results
AIR VOID PARAMETERS ASTM C 457- 06
TOTAL AIR
CONTENT (A)
SPACING
FACTOR
SPECIFIC
SURFACE
VOIDS PER
INCH
LENGTH OF
TRAVEL
NUMBER OF
LOCATION POINTS
SAMPLE ID
(%) (in) in2/ in3 (in)
CORE A3 3.4 0.013 477 4.1 90 1351
CORE B3 6.2 0.012 378 5.8 90 1350
CORE C3 9.3 0.006 509 11.9 90 1351
AVERAGE 6.3 0.010 455 7.3 90 1351
RECOMMENDED(1) 6.5 ± 1.5 < 0.008 > 600 1.5 TIMES A 90
1 Fr. Ch. 4, Section 4.4, Table 4.4.1 of Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. (ACI 2002a)
c. Chloride ion content testing was performed by Motzz Laboratory of Tempe, Arizona, (a
sub-consultant to WTI) using samples number A4, B4, and C4. Results are presented in
Table 4.
Table 4 - Chloride Ion Content Results
CHLORIDE ION CONTENT ASTM C 1218 - 02
REGION FROM CORE A4 CORE B4 CORE C4 AVERAGE
SURFACE (IN) (%) (LB) (%) (LB) (%) (LB) (%) (LB)
0 TO 1 0.1800 0.2700 0.2100 0.3150 0.2000 0.3000 0.1967 0.2950
1 TO 2 0.0120 0.0180 0.0140 0.0210 0.0074 0.0111 0.1113 0.1670
2 TO 3 0.0086 0.0129 0.0096 0.0144 0.0062 0.0093 0.0081 0.0122
3 TO 4 0.0096 0.0144 0.0096 0.0144 0.0087 0.0131 0.0093 0.0014
4 TO 5 0.0089 0.0134 0.0080 0.0120 0.0060 0.0090 0.0076 0.0115
5 TO 6 0.0092 0.0138 0.0065 0.0098 - - 0.0079 0.0118
BASE CONCRETE* 0.0087 0.0131 0.0087 0.0131 0.0087 0.0131 0.0087 0.0131
ACI THRESHOLD(1) 1.3 2 LBS 1.3 2 LBS 1.3 2 LBS 1.3 2 LBS
*Base concrete values were measured during concrete deck placement - August 24, 2005
1 Fr. Guide for Concrete Highway Bridge Deck Construction. (ACI 2002b).
5
FINDINGS
The average RCP value for concrete at all three locations was 349 coulombs. The average
RCP for the concrete at the time of placement was 984 coulombs. This indicates that the
concrete has gained significant resistance to chloride permeability since placement. This is
attributed mainly to the effect of fly ash and silica fume on concrete. The concrete is
currently considered to have very low chloride penetrability as shown in Table 5.
Table 5 - ASTM C1202(1)
Charge Passed (coulomb) Chloride Penetrability
> 4000 High
2000 - 4000 Moderate
1000 - 2000 Low
100 - 1000 Very Low
< 100 Negligible
1Fr Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration. (ASTM 2009).
The air void analysis indicates that air void parameters do not meet recommended criteria by
the American Concrete Institute in Guide to Durable Concrete (ACI 2008) and industry
standards for frost resistant concrete. The lower air content is the result of the higher than
expected concrete air loss during pumping.
The chloride levels measured in three locations at varying deck depths indicate that the
concrete has significantly prevented or slowed the penetration of chloride into the bridge
deck. This correlates very well with the RCP test results measured, as shown in Table 2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that a biennial monitoring program (visual observation, sampling, and
testing of the concrete) be continued to monitor the development of HPC properties and
confirm its performance in the field. Monitoring programs should continue for a minimum
of 10 years, with intervals extended by one year each time until there is no significant change
in concrete properties measured in the field.
6
REFERENCES
1. American Concrete Institute. 2002a. Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete. ACI 318. Detroit, Michigan: American Concrete Institute. Chapter 4,
Section 4.4, Table 4.4.1.
2. American Concrete Institute. 2002b. Guide for Concrete Highway Bridge Deck
Construction. ACI 345. Detroit, Michigan: American Concrete Institute. Chapter
7, Section 7.3.4.
3. American Concrete Institute. 2008. Guide to Durable Concrete. ACI 201.
Detroit, Michigan: American Concrete Institute.
4. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2002. Method for Water-Soluble
Chloride in Mortar and Concrete. ASTM 1218-02. West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials.
5. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2006. Method for Microscopical
Determination of Parameters of the Air Void System in Hardened Concrete. ASTM
C457-06. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and
Materials. .
6. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2009. Standard Test Method for
Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration.
ASTM C1202 – 09. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for
Testing and Materials. Table 5.
7
APPENDIX
Photo 1- Coring location A
Photo 2- Coring location A
8
Photo 3- Coring location B
Photo 4- Coring location C
9
Photo 5- Concrete cores

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

PERFORMANCE TESTING OF
HPC ON SUNSHINE BRIDGE
Final Report 658
Prepared by:
Tarif M. Jaber
Jaber Engineering Consulting, Inc.
10827 E. Butherus Drive
Scottsdale, Arizona 85255
September 2009
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
in cooperation with
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
The contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and
the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway
Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or
manufacturers’ names which may appear herein are cited only because they are considered
essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and The State of Arizona do not
endorse products or manufacturers.
This report can also be found on our web site…
http://www.dot.state.az.us/ABOUT/atrc/Publications/Publications.htm
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA-AZ-09-658
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
5. Report Date
September 2009
Performance Testing of HPC on Sunshine Bridge 6. Performing Organization Code
SPR-658
7. Author
Tarif M. Jaber, P.E. FACI
8. Performing Organization Report No.
JEC Project JEC 64-107
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Work Unit No.
11. Contract or Grant No.
T0402A0002 SPR 658
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
13.Type of Report & Period Covered
Project Manager: Christ Dimitrplos 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
The deck of the Sunshine Bridge overpass, located westbound on Interstate 40 (I-40) near Winslow, Arizona, was
replaced on August 24, 2005. The original deteriorated concrete deck was replaced using high performance
concrete (HPC), reinforced with low-carbon, low-corrosion reinforcing steel. HPC is a new technology in Arizona.
This report documents the first survey of the deck's condition and recommends that ADOT embark on a monitoring
program to evaluate the performance of HPC.
The ADOT monitoring program should consist of visual observation of the deck condition and concrete sampling
and testing to measure and document HPC performance. The survey presented in this report was performed on
December 18, 2007, which represents the first field survey since concrete deck placement.
Visual observation and test results show the following:
1. The concrete has a very low chloride permeability.
2. The concrete has significantly slowed down and/or prevented chloride penetration through the bridge deck.
3. The average air-void parameters of HPC do not meet the industry standards for frost resistant concrete.
4. The deck surface appears to have minimal wear from snow removal equipment and shows no signs of
concrete cracking.
HPC appears to perform very well during the monitoring period despite the lower than recommended air void
system. There were no signs of deterioration or adverse field conditions.
It is recommended that bridge deck monitoring and concrete testing be done annually or biennially throughout the
bridge's estimated 50-year service life to confirm long-term performance of HPC. It is also recommend that the next
monitoring survey be initiated and conducted before the end of the year 2009.
17. Key Words
High performance concrete, bridge decks, low
carbon steel, chloride permeability, rapid chloride
penetration, air void parameters, concrete
cracking, HPC monitoring, long term performance
of HPC
18. Distribution Statement
Document is available to the
U.S. public through the
National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia
22161
23. Registrant's Seal
19. Security Classification
Unclassified
20. Security Classification
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
13
22. Price
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft
yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 Square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 Square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd3
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3.
MASS MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb
T short tons (2000lb) 0.907 megagrams
(or “metric ton”)
mg
(or “t”)
Mg megagrams
(or “metric ton”)
1.102 short tons (2000lb) T
TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact)
ºF Fahrenheit
temperature
5(F-32)/9
or (F-32)/1.8
Celsius temperature ºC ºC Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit
temperature
ºF
ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION
fc foot candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc
fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl
FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
lbf/in2 poundforce per
square inch
6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per
square inch
lbf/in2
SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................1
Introduction.........................................................................................................................2
Project Background .............................................................................................................2
Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................2
Work Performed ..................................................................................................................3
1. Field Sampling .....................................................................................................................3
2. Field Observation.................................................................................................................3
3. Laboratory Testing..............................................................................................................3
a. Rapid chloride permeability ..............................................................................................3
b. Air void analysis................................................................................................................4
c. Chloride ion content ..........................................................................................................4
Findings................................................................................................................................5
Recommendations ................................................................................................................5
References .............................................................................................................................6
Appendix ...............................................................................................................................7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Cores Information....................................................................................................3
Table 2 - RCP Results.............................................................................................................4
Table 3 - Air Void Analysis Results .......................................................................................4
Table 4 - Chloride Ion Content Results...................................................................................4
Table 5 - ASTM C1202 ..........................................................................................................5
APPENDIX
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 1- Coring location A .....................................................................................................7
Photo 2- Coring location A .....................................................................................................7
Photo 3- Coring location B .....................................................................................................8
Photo 4- Coring location C .....................................................................................................8
Photo 5- Concrete cores ..........................................................................................................9
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The deck of the Sunshine Bridge overpass, located westbound on Interstate 40 (I-40) near
Winslow, Arizona, was replaced on August 24, 2005. The original deteriorated concrete
deck was replaced using high performance concrete (HPC), reinforced with low-carbon, low-corrosion
reinforcing steel. HPC is a new technology in Arizona. This report documents the
first survey of the deck's condition and recommends that ADOT embark on a monitoring
program to evaluate the performance of HPC.
The ADOT monitoring program should consist of visual observation of the deck condition
and concrete sampling and testing to measure and document HPC performance. The survey
presented in this report was performed on December 18, 2007, which represents the first field
survey since concrete deck placement.
Visual observation and test results show the following:
1. The concrete has a very low chloride permeability.
2. The concrete has significantly slowed down and/or prevented chloride penetration
through the bridge deck.
3. The average air-void parameters of HPC do not meet the industry standards for frost
resistant concrete.
4. The deck surface appears to have minimal wear from snow removal equipment and
shows no signs of concrete cracking.
HPC appears to perform very well during the monitoring period despite the lower than
recommended air void system. There were no signs of deterioration or adverse field
conditions.
We recommend that bridge deck monitoring and concrete testing be done annually or
biennially throughout the bridge's estimated 50-year service life to confirm long-term
performance of HPC. We also recommend that the next monitoring survey be initiated and
conducted before the end of the year 2009.
2
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this work was to collect information on the performance of the high
performance concrete (HPC), placed on the deck of the Sunshine Bridge overpass on I-40.
The bridge deck was constructed on August 24, 2005, as a pilot project under ATRC Project
SPR 538 to evaluate the feasibility of using HPC technology on bridges in Arizona.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Work under SPR 538 consisted of replacing the deteriorated concrete deck slab with a
durable cast-in-place HPC deck. The HPC was designed to achieve four main objectives:
• Higher durability under freeze-thaw exposure.
• Lower permeability to salt penetration.
• Lower shrinkage potential.
• Reduced steel corrosion.
Quality control and quality assurance programs were implemented during concrete
placement to collect and document information regarding concrete properties at the time of
placement. Concrete sampling and testing were performed during construction to measure
the in-place properties of HPC. This work is a part of a long-term program to monitor the
performance of HPC during service life to:
1. Establish a baseline for concrete properties in the field.
2. Compare the baseline of concrete properties against those measured during concrete
placement.
The baseline established in this work will be used as a benchmark for evaluating concrete
properties and performance during the service life of the concrete bridge deck.
Jaber Engineering Consulting, Inc. (JEC) has completed the work on this project according to
the scope of work outlined in the project statement dated December 7, 2007.
SCOPE OF WORK
1. Visually examine the bridge deck and barriers and document any cracking. If
cracking is found, identify the type and cause.
2. Obtain concrete cores from the deck and measure the following:
a. Rapid chloride permeability (RCP) according to ASTM 1202 Method for
Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration.
(ASTM 2009)
b. Air voids by performing an analysis according to ASTM C 457-06 Method for
Microscopical Determination of Parameters of the Air Void System in Hardened
Concrete. (ASTM 2006)
c. Chloride ion content (CIC) according to ASTM 1218 Method for Water-Soluble
Chloride in Mortar and Concrete. (ASTM 2002).
3. Measure the extent of chloride penetration through the concrete bridge deck.
3
WORK PERFORMED
1. Field Sampling
JEC retained Western Technologies, Inc. (WTI) to perform concrete coring. WTI used
ground penetrating radar (GPR) instruments to locate the reinforcing steel. Concrete coring
locations were selected to avoid any damage to the reinforcing steel during coring operations.
On December 18, 2007, concrete from the bridge deck was sampled at three locations and at
least four cores were taken at each location. A schedule of the concrete core samples is
presented in Table 1 and coring is shown in photos 1 through 5 in the Appendix. All
concrete samples were less than 6 inches long to avoid penetration of the full depth of the
deck. A non-shrink grout was used to patch all cored areas.
Table 1 - Cores Information
CORE INFORMATION
AREA CORE LOCATION # CORES DESIGNATION
A 14' S. of the north barrier and 23' W. of the E. end of the deck 5 A1, A2, A3, A4, A51
B 12' S. of the north barrier and 94.5' E. of the W. end of the deck 4 B1, B2, B3, B4
C 12' S. of the north barrier and 23' E. of the W. end of the deck 4 C1, C2, C3, C4
1 Core A5 was damaged during coring and was discarded
2. Field Observation
JEC made a visual observation of the concrete deck and its surface. There were no signs of
deterioration, scaling, cracking, or similar adverse conditions. The deck surface showed light
markings from snow removal blades and equipment.
3. Laboratory Testing
ADOT retained one sample from each location to perform an in-house RCP testing. ADOT
samples were marked A1, B1, and C1. The remaining samples were sent to WTI and
Construction Technology Laboratory (CTL) in Skokie, Illinois, for testing.
a. Rapid chloride permeability testing was performed by CTL using cores number A2, B2,
and C2. For each core/location, (A, B, and C) the top ¾ inch of the concrete core was
removed and discarded. A 2-inch thick sample was cut and labeled “TOP.” Another 1-
inch thick was cut and discarded and a 2-inch thick sample was cut and labeled
4
“BOTTOM.” The top and bottom samples for each location were tested and their average
represented the RCP value at that location. Results are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 - RCP Results
RCP TEST RESULTS ASTM C 1202, COULOMB
SAMPLE CORE A2 CORE B2 CORE C2 AVERAGE
TOP 1 333 517 574
BOTTOM 2 204 273 193
AVERAGE 269 395 384 349
1 The top of this 2-inch sample is ¾ inch from the top of the corresponding core/deck surface.
2 The top of this 2-inch sample is 3¾ inch from the top of the corresponding core/deck surface.
b. Air void analysis was performed by CTL using samples number A3, B3, and C3. Results
are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 - Air Void Analysis Results
AIR VOID PARAMETERS ASTM C 457- 06
TOTAL AIR
CONTENT (A)
SPACING
FACTOR
SPECIFIC
SURFACE
VOIDS PER
INCH
LENGTH OF
TRAVEL
NUMBER OF
LOCATION POINTS
SAMPLE ID
(%) (in) in2/ in3 (in)
CORE A3 3.4 0.013 477 4.1 90 1351
CORE B3 6.2 0.012 378 5.8 90 1350
CORE C3 9.3 0.006 509 11.9 90 1351
AVERAGE 6.3 0.010 455 7.3 90 1351
RECOMMENDED(1) 6.5 ± 1.5 < 0.008 > 600 1.5 TIMES A 90
1 Fr. Ch. 4, Section 4.4, Table 4.4.1 of Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. (ACI 2002a)
c. Chloride ion content testing was performed by Motzz Laboratory of Tempe, Arizona, (a
sub-consultant to WTI) using samples number A4, B4, and C4. Results are presented in
Table 4.
Table 4 - Chloride Ion Content Results
CHLORIDE ION CONTENT ASTM C 1218 - 02
REGION FROM CORE A4 CORE B4 CORE C4 AVERAGE
SURFACE (IN) (%) (LB) (%) (LB) (%) (LB) (%) (LB)
0 TO 1 0.1800 0.2700 0.2100 0.3150 0.2000 0.3000 0.1967 0.2950
1 TO 2 0.0120 0.0180 0.0140 0.0210 0.0074 0.0111 0.1113 0.1670
2 TO 3 0.0086 0.0129 0.0096 0.0144 0.0062 0.0093 0.0081 0.0122
3 TO 4 0.0096 0.0144 0.0096 0.0144 0.0087 0.0131 0.0093 0.0014
4 TO 5 0.0089 0.0134 0.0080 0.0120 0.0060 0.0090 0.0076 0.0115
5 TO 6 0.0092 0.0138 0.0065 0.0098 - - 0.0079 0.0118
BASE CONCRETE* 0.0087 0.0131 0.0087 0.0131 0.0087 0.0131 0.0087 0.0131
ACI THRESHOLD(1) 1.3 2 LBS 1.3 2 LBS 1.3 2 LBS 1.3 2 LBS
*Base concrete values were measured during concrete deck placement - August 24, 2005
1 Fr. Guide for Concrete Highway Bridge Deck Construction. (ACI 2002b).
5
FINDINGS
The average RCP value for concrete at all three locations was 349 coulombs. The average
RCP for the concrete at the time of placement was 984 coulombs. This indicates that the
concrete has gained significant resistance to chloride permeability since placement. This is
attributed mainly to the effect of fly ash and silica fume on concrete. The concrete is
currently considered to have very low chloride penetrability as shown in Table 5.
Table 5 - ASTM C1202(1)
Charge Passed (coulomb) Chloride Penetrability
> 4000 High
2000 - 4000 Moderate
1000 - 2000 Low
100 - 1000 Very Low
< 100 Negligible
1Fr Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration. (ASTM 2009).
The air void analysis indicates that air void parameters do not meet recommended criteria by
the American Concrete Institute in Guide to Durable Concrete (ACI 2008) and industry
standards for frost resistant concrete. The lower air content is the result of the higher than
expected concrete air loss during pumping.
The chloride levels measured in three locations at varying deck depths indicate that the
concrete has significantly prevented or slowed the penetration of chloride into the bridge
deck. This correlates very well with the RCP test results measured, as shown in Table 2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that a biennial monitoring program (visual observation, sampling, and
testing of the concrete) be continued to monitor the development of HPC properties and
confirm its performance in the field. Monitoring programs should continue for a minimum
of 10 years, with intervals extended by one year each time until there is no significant change
in concrete properties measured in the field.
6
REFERENCES
1. American Concrete Institute. 2002a. Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete. ACI 318. Detroit, Michigan: American Concrete Institute. Chapter 4,
Section 4.4, Table 4.4.1.
2. American Concrete Institute. 2002b. Guide for Concrete Highway Bridge Deck
Construction. ACI 345. Detroit, Michigan: American Concrete Institute. Chapter
7, Section 7.3.4.
3. American Concrete Institute. 2008. Guide to Durable Concrete. ACI 201.
Detroit, Michigan: American Concrete Institute.
4. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2002. Method for Water-Soluble
Chloride in Mortar and Concrete. ASTM 1218-02. West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials.
5. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2006. Method for Microscopical
Determination of Parameters of the Air Void System in Hardened Concrete. ASTM
C457-06. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and
Materials. .
6. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2009. Standard Test Method for
Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration.
ASTM C1202 – 09. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for
Testing and Materials. Table 5.
7
APPENDIX
Photo 1- Coring location A
Photo 2- Coring location A
8
Photo 3- Coring location B
Photo 4- Coring location C
9
Photo 5- Concrete cores